Talk of "Castles in the Air" Detrimental?

In Henry David Thoreau's essay on "Civil Disobedience," he states:

"That if one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavors to live the life which he has imagined, he will meet with a success unexpected in common hours...If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be" (256). 

When we talked about this passage in class, we deciphered that it was primarily idealistic, and that although it was inspirational, Thoreau failed to supply his readers with pragmatic advice as to how they could start "living the life which he has imagined." 

In today's society, this same follow-your-dreams motivation tactic can be found in our every day lives. It seems that parents are over nurturing their kids, covering up failure's with presents or awards, all to keep their children from realizing they have not succeeded. Trophies are given out to the losing team at soccer games, and green participation ribbons are awarded to the last runner who crosses the finish line at track meets. 

While it is essential for parents and mentor figures to motivate kids and teach them the value of having a dream, when does this stop becoming helpful, and start becoming detrimental? If kids grow up believing that truly "anything is possible," how will they react when they meet failure's inevitable grip in the real world? 

As critical readers and thinkers, our American Studies class does not take Thoreau's statement literally, as we know from experience that there are limitations to our dreams, however kids cease to know more than what they are taught. If their teachers raise them to build "castles in the air" and do not teach them how to build a proper foundation, than their castles, simple or complex, will surely crumble.

A dip in Walden Pond

In the mid 1840's, Henry David Thoreau moved to a cabin in the woods to search for the necessities in life and seek how he could achieve them. He then recorded his observations about life and society in his book "Walden." Here, he argues that "our life is frittered away by detail" and urges us to cut back on the frivolous to obtain essential "Simplicity" (73). 

Each year, my family embarks on a similar endeavor by venturing to our cabin in the woods of northern Canada. Here, my family and I escape from "reality" for 10 days or so while we take a step back from our structured, bustling lives to the serenity and relaxation of nature. Our log cabin is small and simple, consisting of 2 bedrooms (to sleep 4 people and 1 dog), a kitchen, a screened in porch, and a bathroom. Our life here is very remote. We just got indoor plumbing 5 years ago, do not have air conditioning, heat, TVs, computers, or even phones. We try to provide for ourselves and many of our meals come from the fish we catch. 

With the secludedness of our surroundings, it's impossible not to become one with nature. Our cabin is on 6 acres of land, overlooking a beautiful lake and in the midst of a thick forest. Our neighbors are bears, moose, wolves, and beavers who often times drop by to say hello.

Since the day time temperature can differ up to 40 degrees from the night's, we pack what we need to stay comfortable. Sweatshirts, sweatpants, jeans,  rain jackets, t-shirts, and shorts fill our suitcases. A "fashionable" item has yet to make the cut.

This trip my family considers a vacation may seem unbearable and boring to some. Although it may not fit the standards of a "common" north shore family vacation, my memories from Canada rank among the best of my life. Since there are very few man made distractions, I'm able to spend time with my family as we go hiking up mountains, fishing while the sun sinks into a gilded sky at sunset, or swimming in the rain. As we are immersed into nature, we become one with its rejuvenating powers and its beauty. 

It today's world, it seems unthinkable to be happy without the Internet, our cell phones, ipods, and 3 story houses. However, from experience, I can agree with Thoreau when he claims "Most of the luxuries, and many of the so-called comforts of life, are not only not indispensable, but positive hindrances to the elevation of mankind" (10). To reiterate an echo from the past-one should take a dip in Walden Pond, and see what it's like to live without unnecessary clutter. There they will find what's truly important in life. 

"Stop and Smell the Roses"

While reading Ralph Waldo Emerson's "Self Reliance," I came across an interesting passage which parallels to a phenomenon occurring at New Trier: "But man postpones or remembers; he does not live in the present, but with reverted eye laments the past, or, heedless of the riches that surround him, stands on tiptoe to foresee the future. He cannot be happy and strong until he too lives with nature in the present, above time" (29). 

This concept of living in the present is very foreign New Trier students. We are constantly reliving our mistakes of the past or thinking about the future. New Trier's structure and expectations make it rather difficult not to. We feel the pressure to exceed at standardized tests like the ACT/SAT, make the best grades, and be the most "involved." All so we can get into a "good school." This makes it feel as if we are determining our future by what course of action we take in high school. Thus is it even possible to ultimately "live with nature in the present?" 

As we've been discussing in class, we must not take Emerson's arguments as literal claims, but rather except them as extremes to portray a message more effectively. We must do the same with the connotations of this passage. In Emerson's age, it was unthinkable to conceive that any human being could be as over scheduled and overachieving as our present generation is. Therefore, since Emerson was not writing for this generation as his audience, we must take his argument as more of a guideline than a rule. Of course it is not possible with the expectations and pressure put on us to live completely in the present. However it is important to realize our present. Despite our busy schedules, we must stop occasionally to "smell the roses." After all, "nothing can bring you peace but yourself"(38)-a claim which remains a universal truth to all generations. 

"If Something Can Go Wrong, It Usually Will"

It is easier now more than ever to stay in contact with friends and family across state, country, and even continental borders. This luxury of communication is made possible by a little invention known as the cell phone. Users are able to text, instant message, and speak directly to others through this mobile devise. 

However, according to Murphy's law: "if something can go wrong, it usually will." Over the past few years, studies have shown that long exposure to the electromagnetic signals in cell phones can lead to brain cancer. According to Dr. Debra Davis, the director of the world's first Center for Environmental Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, "children's brains are the most vulnerable because their nervous systems are still developing at the time of exposure." Yet, kids are one of the fastest growing markets for cell phones. Although the direct correlation between cell phone usage and brain cancer has not been proven as a scientific fact yet, many of the studies seem undeniable. For example, there is a multinational study being done in Scandinavia and the United Kingdom which has shown a significant increase in gliomas-a type of brain cancer- in individuals who have had cell phones for over 10 years. 

Many don't want to believe the frightening evidence suggesting the severe health risks of cell phone usage because these mobile devises have become a part of our every day lives. However, we must look critically at the recent progression in communication, and analyze its effects. Although the study has not been proven factual yet, society cannot wait until there is definite proof before limiting exposure. For although Murphy's law may be seen as a cynical approach towards progress, studies showing the health risks of cell phones have proven that it is indeed a pragmatic assertion. 

The Modern Day Duel

A few weeks ago in class, Mrs. Logan said that the key to winning a debate is how one chooses to frame the question. This technique is evident as the presidential candidates seek to justify their stances on controversial issues such as taxes.

Senator Barack Obama has been criticized for taking a socialistic approach to his tax policy. Some consider Obama's plan of "redistributing the wealth" by placing higher taxes on the wealthy to compensate for lower/middle class families, as something closely simulating communism. This is how conservatives frame the issue of taxes: by comparing the opposing candidate's policy to a movement that is nationally recognized as a failure. Thus, the only "right" response seems to be fear of the liberal's plan, and support of the republican's.

However, Obama rebuts McCain's claim by bringing morality into the issue. He asserts that where he comes from, his policy is known as fairness. This frames the same issue in a different light, and thus those persuaded by his argument can conclude that Obama's policy is the only "right" choice for it is the virtuous thing to do.

Evidently, one claim can be supported with two very different warrants. Both arguments are convincing within the context of how they are framed. It will be very interesting to see tomorrow night which version of the argument the American people choose to believe.

There's No "ME" in Intrinsic but there is an "I"

At New Trier, we value students who are intrinsically motivated. It's a goal of our academic institute to impart this value onto its pupils early so they may practice this self-motivated learning  in future endeavors. However in other aspects of our lives aside from school, those who live intrinsically may easily be mistaken as selfish. For example, the girl down the street who has a lemonade sell to turn a small profit rather than to donate her earnings to charity, can be seen as greedy. Although a girl selling her neighbors a refreshment and a student who makes A's for their personal satisfaction are different, why may one be mistaken as self-absorbed where the other is deemed good? It is important to distinguish that one who is concentrated on succeeding for self-pertaining reasons rather than for external forces is technically selfish, but not in the common sense of the word. Those who live intrinsically are concerned with making their personal success, however often it is not without regard to others-as the definition of selfish states. It's important to have these intrinsic goals to ensure that what one is working towards is for their self benefit, and not just for external reasons. Therefore it's good to be a bit selfish sometimes and live intrinsically. After all there's not an "I" in intrinsic for nothing.

Give Me The Presidency Or Give Me Death!

Through various artifacts we've explored in our current unit, we have learned the effectiveness of using dichotomies. Patrick Henry used this tactic of persuasion in his letter he wrote to the president. Throughout this document he associates inaction to war with slavery: "There is no retreat but in submission and slavery." This theme of enslavement is weaved throughout the entirety of his letter as he makes constant references to chains and surrendering to tyrannical hands. This fuels the persuasiveness of his last and most popular line: "Give me liberty or give me death!" The dichotomy is so convincing because it oversimplifies the decision of what the president must do: clearly he will not choose death, and so the only choice is liberty. 

Two hundred and thirty three years later, our politicians continue to use this art of persuasion to win votes. In a recent speech given by Senator John McCain, he outlines his promises to combat "evil" if president. In addressing the recent financial crisis, he states he will do more to aid the victims of "this evil form of 21st-century slavery." To claim that Americans are enslaved in debt might be a bit of a stretch, but was ultimately proven effective in swaying his audience to believe he is the better candidate. McCain saying he'll "combat evil" suggests the imagery of a hero fighting the villain. This lends us a sense of trust for McCain and the comfort of protection, precisely what Americans are looking for in this unsteady time of peril. It's only when we dissect these dichotomies and recognize their far fetched nature that we may realize they are not quite as persuasive as we thought they were. 

Fear Controls, Literally

While flipping through the New York Times a few days ago, I came across an article entitled "Never Mind the Logic; Fear May Have an Edge". It discusses the recent financial crisis and through scientific studies, analyzes the individuals response to fear: "Scientists who have studied the brain function have found that the amygdala, the part of the brain that control fear; responds faster than the parts of the brain that handle cognitive function". This explains the power behind fear's motivational force. Since our ability to analyze a situation is second to the panic that sets in when we are afraid, we often respond foolishly to situations out of fright. This was seen recently, when many terrified Americans hurriedly sold their stocks, for fear they would lose money. This led to a domino effect of incompetence in Wall Street that plunged the market into deeper deficit. 

This proves the importance of using appeals that directly correspond to the individual. For when we are emotionally aroused about our own lives, our abilities to deconstruct an argument are temporarily useless. Therefore, in many arguments, the use of ethos and pathos, which may be aimed to directly effect the individual,  are more effective than logos. 

Consequently, it is critical in these fearful times to take a step back and think pragmatically. Before we are impelled to act out of panic, we must examine the practicality of the situation in order to ensure we are not being controlled by fear. 

Fear Used as Political Ploy

Over the past few weeks, one can not seem to escape talk about how the economy is laying in ruins with the recent financial crisis. Families have become consumed with inescapable fear which is reinforced through the media's stunts. Newspaper and television news shows advertise frightening headlines such as: "a present day Great Depression?" and "Financial crisis: whose to blame?" With modern day technology more advanced and popular than ever, the media has become an authority figure in itself. It is American's primary informational source, and just like physical beings, can and has been ruling through the tactics of fear and suspicion. For example, by the media relating the present day crisis to the Great Depression, many are fearful of their future, and thus pulling out their shares in stocks, which only throws the economy into greater deficit. These horrific headlines and parallels to the 1930's stock market crash draw in more viewers. 

In addition, McCain and Obama are using the financial crisis as a tool for their campaigns. Both candidates tell us their definition of whose to blame and why. Thus, they share the political ploy of making us more afraid of our financial future, and telling us whose to blame for this. This manipulates us into thinking they are the solution to our economic ailment.

We must never underestimated the power fear has on the human race, it consumes the individual, warping their judgement, and making them susceptible and blind to corruption. 

The Future of our Nation: Shaped by Faith or Ignorance?

While reading the handout about F.D.R. and the New Deal for homework, I drew some interesting parallels concerning the average voter in the 1930's to present day voters. As we've been discussing in class, the role of the authority figure is noticeably effected in perilous times. During the election between Hoover and F.D.R. in the Great Depression, Americans were looking for a candidate with fresh hope for the future, and more importantly, solutions: "F.D.R. kept popular attention focused on the need for change, rather than on the tougher and riskier question of what kind of change" (The Great Depression and the New Deal 726). F.D.R.'s popular, though ambiguous, campaign for change appealed to voters then for the same reason as Obama's slogan of "Change we can believe in" attracts present day voters. We crave the instant gratification of a better future, as we should. However an evolving problem in society is the fine line between faith that our choice candidate will deliver in his promises, and the ignorance and lack of understanding of what we are voting for. For example, historian and author Rich Shenkman claims that "Americans are ill-prepared to guide the world's most powerful democracy." Shenkman warrants this claim by saying the majority of citizens are uninformed and getting what little information they have about the candidates from 30 second commercials. Shenkman argues that this is an insufficient basis for deciding how we'll vote for too many are buying into the manipulation of biased media coverage. 

     During perilous times we may be tempted to choose the fast fix as opposed to a longer term plan. However in these uncertain times it is critical that the American voter takes the responsibility of educating themselves about the different candidate's policies so they can make an informed decision. For if we don't, it's hard to have much confidence in our democracy. 

Your vote this upcoming election: more than just an opinion?

In the editorial section of the Sunday New York Times, I came across an article arguing that Congress should require voter-verified paper records for every electronic ballot cast due to the unreliability of electronic voting machines. The writer warranted their claim by stating the various serious problems of electronic voting, including miscounts, vote flipping, and the use of uncertified software for the machines. The appeals of this argument are aimed primarily at logic, logos, for there are serious problems which need to be fixed. Also, the author is appealing to ethos by giving the reader a sense of worry that their vote may not be counted properly. Furthermore, in critiquing this argument, there is not much to assess for it is very straightforward. However, it would have been a stronger case if the writer included a pathos, emotional appeal, by emphasizing the effect the flaws of the machine can have on the outcome of the election. Since many Americans identify very strongly with their political views, the possibility that their vote will be compromised will most likely make them feel more passionate about the unreliability of the electronic voting machines. 

A lesson from the Puritan Dream

     

    It seems that society is teaching children at a younger and younger age the difference between realistic and unrealistic dreams. As 1st graders we trade in our aspirations of becoming ballerinas and astronauts for more "sensible" options, such as doctors, lawyers, and business positions. In other words, professions that will provide us with a decent living. One might argue that this is evidence of the foundation of the American Dream: Americans wanting and securing a better life for their children. 

      This ideal can be traced back to Puritanism. As concluded by Cullen in The American Dream, the Puritans solidified the many cornerstones for what we consider the American Dream today: prosperity, happiness, and a better life for future generations. However it is vital to denote the importance of one aspect of Puritan society that they are commonly criticized for: the fact that their attempt at a "perfect society" was merely ideological, rather than realistic. While this did play a large role in failing the Puritan society, it is also responsible for a great deal of their success. They had a vision of becoming "a city upon a hill" and risked everything to achieve it. Although it is important to ground our aspirations in reality, with the growing pressure of society we are forgetting the importance and power of a dream. If we choose playing it safe for fear of failing, then how rewarding will our success be when and if we achieve it? 

      While the Puritans may have made many flaws in their structure of society, we must look to them as an example of how with dedication and discipline, we can challenge ourselves beyond what we thought we were capable of to follow our dreams. Through this, we have a much greater chance of ultimately achieving the true American Dream-whatever it might mean to you. 

What lies behind their media masks?

As we stand poised on the precipice of what promises to be a deeply partisan presidential election, it is becoming increasingly clear how many Americans are choosing to focus on the candidate's media image, rather than their true stand on the issues. For example, in this election more than any other, more and more voters seeking information in a hurry opt for the internet as their sole source of news. To see what kind of information I would get, I googled Senator McCain's running mate, Governor Sarah Palin, and received 14,900,000 hits. The danger of choosing modern technology over an old fashioned newspaper or magazine, is that it retrieves a much larger base of biased and/or even unfactual information. I came across a very interesting website, grizzlybay.org, which chooses to focus on Palin's "barbaric" alaskan life as an "animal killer". Although this homepage claims to have all their facts backed up by "credible journal citations", its facts and photos are manipulated to discourage animal lovers from supporting the conservative vote. As seen below, while the first picture is clearly Palin, the other two picture below contain no evidence that their death is due to Palin. However, the ignorant might fail to properly assess the truth of the website's narrative, and believe that Palin is responsible for the wolve's deaths. This is why is it crucial for the reader to question the reliability of their sources before they are swayed into mistaking the fiction for the truth.

first post

this is the first post